'An Open Letter To Meta: Support True Messaging Interoperability With XMPP' (xmpp.org)
- Reference: 0176858417
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/03/29/1831231/an-open-letter-to-meta-support-true-messaging-interoperability-with-xmpp
- Source link: https://xmpp.org/announcements/open-letter-meta-dma/
And here in 2025, the chair of the nonprofit XMPP Standards Foundation is long-time Slashdot reader [5]ralphm , who is now [6]issuing this call to action at XMPP.org :
> The European Digital Markets Act (DMA) is designed to break down walled gardens and enforce messaging interoperability. As a designated gatekeeper, Meta—controlling WhatsApp and Messenger—must comply. However, its current proposal falls short, risking further entrenchment of its dominance rather than fostering genuine competition. [..]
>
> A Call to Action
>
> The XMPP Standards Foundation urges Meta to adopt XMPP for messaging interoperability. It is ready to collaborate, continue to evolve the protocol to meet modern needs, and ensure true compliance with the DMA. Let's build an open, competitive messaging ecosystem—one that benefits both users and service providers.
>
> It's time for real interoperability. Let's make it happen.
[1] https://www.slashdot.org/~Jeremie
[2] https://slashdot.org/story/99/01/04/1621211/open-real-time-messaging-system
[3] https://developers.slashdot.org/story/08/02/04/1320210/is-xmpp-the-next-big-thing
[4] https://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/07/16/131254/facebook-finally-ends-xmpp-support-for-3rd-party-chat
[5] https://www.slashdot.org/~ralphm
[6] https://xmpp.org/announcements/open-letter-meta-dma/
XMPP vs E2EE (Score:1)
XMPP is great. -- see the period there. Pretend it's a mic-drop.
Various platforms offer some form of encryption. Singal offers true E2EE. What's up (META) offers encryption to their server and down to the other side (so Alice to server is encrypted and server to Bob is encrypted and sometimes Alice to Bob is encrypted but it all goes through server and META collects meta-data no pun intended).
Apple does their thing and I'm not knowledgeable about that. -- this means nothing I say here applies to Apple
Why XMPP (Score:2)
Why XMPP? It doesn't even support any modern form of SSO There are plenty of other interoperable messaging standards. There's Matrix, they could easily develop a federated revision of the Signal protocol, and if you really wanted to abstract it, you could represent an IM conversation as a series of emails (see Delta Chat for an encrypted email-based messenger).
Re: (Score:2)
> Why XMPP?
[raises hand] Ooo, Ooo... 'Cause it has an "X" in the name? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Why XMPP?
> [raises hand] Ooo, Ooo... 'Cause it has an "X" in the name? :-)
[1]The 'X' make is sound cool. [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG6vgzAswgE&t=7s
Re: (Score:2)
Well done, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's the IEEE standard for chat.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I am typing too fast. It's the IETF standard for chat, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's good.
Re: (Score:2)
...Except for the XML, which is an abomination.
Meta Called, They Said: (Score:2)
NO.
Re: (Score:2)
But but, Zuckerberg was whining a few months ago about how "unfair" that [1] Apple was hamstringing their competitors [youtu.be] by not opening up a protocol they designed. For context, iPhones and AirPods can connect with a proprietary Apple wireless protocol in addition to standard Bluetooth.
[1] https://youtu.be/2DIhBmDOa8o?si=9z28kmYO5eEJF0X8
AOL (Score:3)
I don't understand why my AOL Mail doesn't work with my Facebook messages. AOL has everything I need and Facebook should just work.
Spam (Score:2)
I agree in theory, but spam (in particular from scammers) is such a big problem on pretty much all platforms that I prefer messaging networks to be reasonably closed off where possible. I know there are federations solutions that could work in theory but Whatsapp works pretty well now and I don't think we really need this.
Google did XMPP for a long time of course, I don't remember it being much of a loss when they turned it off.
Secure SMS ? (Score:1)
If SMS transport is so secure, and protocol is so secure, how come we get so much crap and spam over it ? When does someone is going to invent a protocol that guarantees sender is who he/she is ? People are loosing millions everyday from these scams.
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why should Meta do that if others like Apple, Microsoft and Google are not using it. And let's not forget people use Whatsapp even for (video)calling, those should also be standard for any 'true messaging interoperability' if you want to go forward with one standard.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because due to EU regulation, Meta has put forth an "Interoperability Plan."
The letter is essentially a response to that plan.
RTFA remains as relevant as ever . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought that the most likely protocol for them to adopt would be RCS. Google and Apple already support it. WhatsApp is already tied to your phone number. It's got E2E encryption, the same as WhatsApp, even the same protocol (Signal).
Re: (Score:2)
RCS is built on the ETSI/GSM mobile stack though? Yes, I know, it's designed to run over IP because LTE is IP, but it's still made with the assumption you're using phones to communicate with one another. I mean, they could register as mobile phone operator but it seems a weird protocol to start using.
And do we really want Facebook integrating their system with the modern equivalent of SMS?
To be honest, there aren't any good options IMO. RCS is still under development in practice (E2E encryption etc have onl